MSNBC's David Shuster: "Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery"

MSNBC ^ | November 7, 2004 | David Shuster

[safisoft]

sin is a very difficult thing to define.

How about this one:

1 John 3:4: "Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law"

The 'Law' was given as a declaration of God's holiness. It defined what holiness looked like. 'Jesus' came and lived the PERFECT holy life, keeping the 'Law' perfectly. We can see that if we have a relationship with Him, we want to be like and live like Him. The old "What Would Jesus Do?" question did not go far enough. It should have been, "What DID Y'shua DO?" If He did something, why would you not want to?

I am not Torah-submissive because I am trying to attain a righteousness by obedience. I submit to all of His commands because He loves me, and I love Him... and as a loving son, I look and attend to my Father's instructions.

Part of the problem with the whole argument of "oh but that has been done away with" is that it is blantantly inconsistent. Arguing against Shuster's point by saying the things he quoted are no longer in effect shows PRECISELY why conservative 'Christians' have lost the argument for the moral soul of America. IT ALL BECOMES RELATIVE. For you it is relative to a Man-written page in your Bible which says, "New Testament" on it. Everything to the LEFT of that page is 'OLD' and everything to the RIGHT of that page is the 'New' (sorry, the 'New Covenant' is promised in Jeremiah 31 - to the houses of Israel and Judah). The Apostles would be SHOCKED at modern 'Christians' disregard for God's Word and the apportioning of it into "in effect / not in effect". They NEVER envisioned that. Nor did Y'shua [Jesus] when He told His followers PLAINLY to DO, and TEACH the Torah commandments.

Paul as well is so misunderstood. His theology is highly Judaic, but the heresies of Marcion and Justin Martyr have been faithfully replicated in 'Christian' dogma for 1,800 years. Put the theology on the bookshelf, and ask yourself the honest question: Could it even REMOTELY be 'wrong' to live like Y'shua [Jesus] lived BECAUSE YOU LOVE HIM? If not, the question then must be... why aren't you?

[safisoft]

However, I do know that in Romans that Jesus says to (and I paraphrase here - it's been a long time since I read that book) not adhere as closely and literally to "the laws", which implies (at least as I understand it) moving beyond Leviticus.

First, Romans was written by Paul. Paul did indeed adhere completely with 'Jesus' teaching. Including where 'Jesus' said in what is called the "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew 5-7 told His followers that He did NOT come to abolish the Law. (Go read it: plain as day: Matthew 5:17).

Regarding slavery, most people who point to those places in Scripture are woefully ignorant. They are being anacronistic. 'Slavery' means something to us, totally unlrelated to the commands of the Bible. In almost every command regarding slavery in Scripture it is referencing what we would now called 'indentured servitude'. It was a means to escape debt. It AUTOMATICALLY and by God's 'Law' expired every sm'ittah year, that is every seventh year. Even if someone SOLD THEMSELVES to get out of debt, they could NOT be mistreated, and they HAD to be provided for. Even if they sold themselves 1 year before sh'mittah, they still were set free the next year. In fact, there are specific 'laws' that prohibit the consideration of how long it was until sh'mittah in consideration of forgiveness of debts. Ironically, many of our modern personal bankrupcy provisions come straight from these commands.

In the ideal biblical economy there was no such thing as unemployed or poor - even for those who had gotten themselves into bad finacial shape. The word is translated 'slave' in English - but the biblical model is far from that. Modern welfare is far more enslaving than the biblical commands. Shuster's selective use of this is shameful - and an attempt to somehow relate the abhorrent practice of slavery to God's commands. That is shameful to say the least.

[Alouette]

devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes,

And that's a bad thing because....???

and stoning people...

That's a sha'ariah thing.

[wildbill]

"Homosexuality...is something wired into the genes of approximately 3 or 4 percent of the human population in every single culture on the planet."

I'm not very bright about genetic theory and how it stands up with evolutionary theory, but riddle me this:

If there is a homosexual gene, wouldn't that be a recessive gene that would eventually die out since the gene itself prevents the carrier from procreating?

Or is the homosexual gene merely a minor part of the gene helix that has to combine with something else to carry on the genetic marker?

[rockrr]

"Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people... I would prefer that our society move forward."

Perhaps. That is why there are Republicans around - to stop them at the pass.....

[mlocher]

I submit to all of His commands because He loves me,

you statement is one i basically agree with. "we love others because he first loved us" is the paraphrase of the bible verse. i struggle with your use of the word "submit". i submit to christ, but by following what christ wants, the laws become secondary. that is, by following jesus, you don't have to worry about breaking the laws because you will not (usually). this is the message or romans 7.

the fact that the original apolstle would be shocked at today's world is true. the fact that people do not follow god's law is a symptom. the problem is that they are not following jesus with their entire lives. follow jesus and the symptoms go away.

if i am out there "loving my neighbors as myself", "love my lord with all my heart and soul" and "doing unto others as they would do unto me" the moral law will be followed, and i did not even have to worry about it crossing my mind, and i therefore will be less prone to the action of sin.

i am not dissing the old testament; it is god's word and contains words to live by. but it was also written at a time when the holy spirit was not upon us. laws were necessary to keep people in place. the holy spirit, through baptism, empowers us to do what jesus would do and gives us a way to avoid having to worry constantly that we are breaking the law and having to worry about the damnation of the law.

[Tempest]

More left wing ugliness. Let the condescension and clueless posturing begin.

[AmericanInTokyo]

|Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of Islamofascism, devout observance to Daily Prayers to Mecca, banned music, all burqa for women, and stoning Christians in public squares... I would prefer that our society move forward."

What a jerk, this Shuster fellow.

[Hi Heels]

Oh pulleze.... Why on God's earth do we have to continue to coddle and hug homosexual people? I live in California (Kalliefornia). This is rubbed in my face 24/7, my 14 y/o is instructed to be tolerant by every school official, the politicians dance around the topic constantly, the gays whine and weep about how put out they are while endlessly pawing at each other at the bars out here and in the streets oblivous to the public who does NOT want to SEE them at their sexual peak in broad daylight. WE have rights, too. The right not to be blackmailed by fringe groups with too much power.

"Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people to death". Let's do it. I'm sick of it. Someone get me a rock. Let's start with the author. Maybe they'll SHUT UP for awhile and keep it in the bedroom. Get rid of the dam* AIDS groups, the "halfway houses" the "King and Queen" bars.... sheesh....

</rant end>

[mrplind]

well the real issue is that you have to understand that the monetary system of the day was very primitive, almost non-existent, so when someone was in debt to another, the only way for that man or family to repay the debt was to become a slave in part ... that why it was so rampant, now there was some slavery as we would understand it, bought and sold, but the slavery that the Bible is mainly talking about is from one person indebted to another ...

[safisoft]

i am not dissing the old testament; it is god's word and contains words to live by. but it was also written at a time when the holy spirit was not upon us

From Ezekiel 36:24-28: For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My chokim [statutes], and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.

The 'Holy Spirit' enables His followers to walk in His chokim. Just so you know, many of the 'laws' you have in fact 'dissed' are chokim. What to eat, what to wear, and the Sabbath are all chokim. Go to any 'study Bible' and look for 'New Covenant' and you will find Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31 listed. In Jeremiah 31:33, God promises that He will write His Torah on His people's heart. So, if TORAH is written on your heart, why would one be inclined to declare it abolished?

From Jeremiah 31:33: But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Torah in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

What you are arguing for is that once God wrote His 'Law' on our hearts by His Holy Spirit, we no longer pay attention to it. It defies not only Biblical hermaneutics; it even defies Western logic.

loving my neighbors as myself
Leviticus 18:19

love my lord with all my heart and soul
Deuteronomy 6:4

doing unto others as they would do unto me
Most certainly not unique to the 'New Testament'. In fact, the famed Rabbi Hillel (40 BCE to 10 CE) said this long before the 'New Testament' was written.

Rabbi Hillel: "What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary." - Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 31a

I have a theoretical question for you. Be careful how you answer. Do you honestly believe, that if 'Jesus' walked up to a Deli window today, He would order a ham sandwich?

My Master was, and is a Jew. By grace He has invited me, and other invited men and women from the Nations (Gentiles), to follow Him - not to become 'Jewish' but to act like He did and does. God told Moses that would happen, but instead too many 'Christians' are too busy with their 'theology' to wonder what kind of Wisdom God gave in the 'Old Testament' - they are too busy despising all things 'Jewish' (in their minds):

From Deuteronomy 4:5-9: ?Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.?' For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this Torah [Law] which I set before you this day? Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren...

One day, all of God's people will rightly honor ALL of His Words and not pick and choose. When that day comes, men of Shuster's ilk, instead of mocking the inconsistency of our message, they will say, "...what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this Torah [Law]".

[onyx]

I've often wondered why FNC cut him loose?
Is Shuster a homosexual?

[weegee]

Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you very must for providing this "gentleman's" personal e-mail address. I sent the following letter. If there is any reply, I will post it here.

re: your "slavery" article and the US Constitution

Mr. Shuster,

I am a civil rights lawyer with more than 30 years practice in the US Supreme Court under my belt. I will state why your position is an attack on the US Constitution.

The proper business of judges (and Justices) is to know the law of their jurisdictions, including their respective constitutions. And once they know it, their further duty is to enforce it. I will spare you a raft of quotations from the lawyers and others who have written our 51 constitutions (state and federal) save these two: Thomas Jefferson called the federal judiciary "the most dangerous branch," because of the damage they could do if they ever started writing the laws rather than merely enforcing them.

Madison, Hamilton and Jay in the Federalist wrote that federal judges should have "WILL but not JUDGMENT." They explained, as with Jefferson, that judges should decide the cases before them, but not reach legislative conclusions about the desirability of any law. That was the only time in all of the 85 Federalist Papers that the authors capitalized words like that, indicating the strength of their opinion on that point.

Under the principle of "popular sovereignty," and in accord with the amendment provisions of those various constitutions, only the people have the right to amend those constitutions. Led by the Chief Justice, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts violated that basic principle of state and federal law by arrogating to itself the power to amend that constitution. (The Chief Justice also should have disqualified herself under the rules of judicial ethics, but that is an additional matter.)

Once the six centuries of the definition of marriage had been written into the Massachusetts Constitution illegally by its SJC, all the other states were implicated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. That clause requires every state accept the official acts of all other states. If you have done your homework, you are aware of some of the cases already brought in other states, by homosexual couples holding apparently valid marriage licenses from Massachusetts and California, to force courts in those other states to recognize and accept the legality of those relationships.

To say that judges or Justices do and should have the power to amend their various constitutions at the will of a majority of their courts is to attack the central premise of a "nation under the rule of law." It is an attack on popular sovereignty (including the power to amend) which is the central political premise of the United States.

Perhaps you have never thought of the implications of your position in purely constitutional terms. But I have. Protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States has been the purpose of my life since before I graduated from law school, many decades ago. And if you, and others, persist in attacking the Constitution, you will find no more an implacable opponent on these shores than me.

I do not expect a reply to this letter, but I would be interested to receive one.

Congressman Billybob

[Future Useless Eater]

>>On Tuesday, eleven different states outlawed gay marriage.


Shuster should get the terms right. What he wants is SAME-SEX marriage.

Anyone, regardless of their 'preference' can get married today.
(except that marriage MEANS 1 man + 1 woman).

So gays already have the right to marry,
They just have to pick someone of the opposite sex.

Or else call it SODOMY or some other term.

[IStillBelieve]

Although most liberals are too ignorant to frame the argument in such a precise manner, what would you say to one claiming that those who oppose an activist judiciary must ipso facto oppose Brown v. Board of Education, and must therefore support segregated schools?

[JSteff]

No. You are right, my world is now in shambles.





:-)